battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Adding flags to the "used by" fields
13:43, August 20, 2011 (UTC) I had the same idea for the characters. Also, IMHO, we should separate the "used" field into "faction" and "kit" fields, given that for many of the games, the weapons are faction and/or kit-specific. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:09, August 20, 2011 (UTC) It's a minor addition. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:29, August 20, 2011 (UTC) :I like it. And Yuri's idea of splitting faction and kit are a good idea. BC2, where every weapon can be used by any side, wouldn't need a faction section in this case, but every other game would. 17:47, August 20, 2011 (UTC) ::I like it too. Great ideas all around - 18:12, August 20, 2011 (UTC) ::On the President's point, this only for when it applies. This is also for vehicles, which are usually faction-specific. Also, just like the faction templates, they'd use the flags from the specific game. So that means Type 97 Chi-Ha would use the normal flag in the BF1942 section, and the naval flag in the BF1943 section. ::Yuri's suggestion is very good. hadn,t thought of that. One concern, though... What would we do for pages like K98 or No 4 where they're used by only certain kits of certain factions? For example, the USMC don't use the No 4 in their Engi kit, but they use it for they're scout kit, and all the other factions use it for their scout and engi kits. I don't know how we'd list that. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 02:49, August 21, 2011 (UTC) :::List both? Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 04:03, August 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::What I mean is how do we clearly list in the infobox that the USMC only uses the No 4 in their Scout kit, and that all the others use it in their Scout and Engineer kits? We could just leave it up to the prose. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 15:49, August 21, 2011 (UTC) :::::It does create quite the conundrum... I guess leave it to the weapon's description. 19:57, August 21, 2011 (UTC) :::::Why should we specify? People can figure that out on their own. Not difficult. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:07, August 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Yuri, you might be giving people too much credit for their intelligence. We may understand it, but there are plenty of stupid people out there that would question that. But I still agree with you to let them figure it out. So long as they don't try to fix it on their own and make it worse, lol. 20:14, August 21, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I suppose you're right, but that doesn't mean we should simply abandon the idea altogether because some schmucks aren't smart enough to figure stuff like that out on their own. As you said, it'd be easiest to simply place that info in the article. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:46, August 21, 2011 (UTC) I certainly don't think we should abandon it. But it would probably be best to have a small note in the infobox - perhaps as a sort of footnote. A footnote section might be useful other times too... - 01:09, August 22, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, that could work, thought I think the note should go at the end of the page, kinda like the references. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 05:44, August 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, if it was to go at the end of the article, it might confuse people, since it's a footnote, not a reference. The best bit is that it can be programmed so that the footnotes can be listed in one place, and the references in another, without the 2 interfering - 16:32, August 22, 2011 (UTC) :::Looks good, Bond! But could the footnote be perhaps placed in the same box as the Source of Statistics box or would that look weird/be confusing? 18:36, August 22, 2011 (UTC) Well, I think we've all pretty much agreed that this would be a good idea. Shall we vote? I propose that, per Yuri's suggestion, we alter our infoboxes to include a faction and a kit section in place of the used by section, with SSD's suggested use of flags and my suggestion for a footnote box to outline any difficulties with this or other infobox elements - 16:27, August 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - 16:27, August 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - I think you mean my suggestion. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:14, August 27, 2011 (UTC) ::Sorry, Yuri. You're right. I just looked at who started the forum post. I've amended my statement - 17:35, August 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - No reason not to. It adds more valuable information to the gunbox that can be viewed quickly without having to rad through the article. 18:20, August 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - Information is added and it looks nice. JPanzerj 12:22, August 28, 2011 (UTC) OK then, that's passed... - 10:46, September 4, 2011 (UTC) }}